MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1867894290

Unclogging the Pipes: Pipeline Reviews and Energy Policy

2012· book· en· W1867894290 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph A. Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2012
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Pipeline (software)HarmonizationProcess (computing)Political scienceFocus (optics)Environmental planningBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsGeographyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s energy sector, and the Canadian economy, would benefit from a renewed focus on pipeline review policy and regulation. Recent cases, including the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, the Keystone XL, and the Northern Gateway pipeline, highlight current challenges and the need for an improved regulatory review process. This paper argues for improvements in two key areas. First, the regulatory review process needs focus and harmonization. Second, governments urgently need to address scope creep in regulatory review analysis and decisionmaking.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0140.016
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0170.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueC.D. Howe Institute CommentarySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207